An Electrostatic Nursery Shelter for Raising Pest and Pathogen Free Tomato Seedlings in an Open-Window Greenhouse Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electrostatic nursery shelter reported in this work was a transparent film-covered rectangular box with three electric field screens on each of the long sides of the box. This arrangement prevents flying pests and airborne fungal pathogens from entering the nursery space. Insulated conducting wires (ICWs) were used as electrodes to create electric fields. The ICWs were arrayed in parallel, and linked to direct-current voltage sources. The ICW layers were negatively or positively charged with equal voltages to form dipoles; i.e., ICW(–) and ICW(+). The electric field screen consisted of three layers of the ICWs; i.e., an ICW(–) layer on either side of an ICW(+) layer. Four species of major tomato pests were used in a blowing assay: whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci), western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis), green peach aphids (Myzus persicae) and tomato leaf miner flies (Liriomyza sativae). The ICWs were located to capture test pests that were mechanically blown into the electric-field screen. The electrostatic force to capture the insects was directly proportional to the applied voltage, and at voltages of 1.2 kV or greater, the screen exerted sufficient force to capture all of the test pests. An assay in a pest-infested greenhouse revealed that the ICWs captured all the pests that approached the screen, and the plants within the shelter remained pest-free. In addition, we show that the electric-field-screened shelter remained spore-free in the presence of continuous exposure to the conidia of tomato powdery mildew (Oidium neolycopersici).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".